Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

A rogue convention? How GOP party rules may surprise in 2012

John McCain's early victory contributed to reduced attention in other primaries, the authors write. |
Reuters
Close

Yet in a number of Republican contests — including New Hampshire, which allows undeclared voters, including those registering on Election Day, to participate — candidates who aren’t registered as Republicans can help determine the party’s nominee. Some states even allow registered Democrats to vote in its contest, a real possibility in a year when Democrats apparently won’t have a contested nomination race.

To anticipate potential convention challenges on this basis, keep an eye on which candidate does better in closed primary states that more accurately reflect what registered Republican voters want — if it’s not the candidate who has become the front-runner due to plurality vote wins in open primary states — watch out for fireworks in Tampa.

Text Size

-

+

reset

A Convention Potentially at Odds with its Front-runner

The nature of the Republican contest makes our analysis more than just a theoretical debate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has the inside track, but he remains far short of 50 percent Republican support — especially among grassroots conservatives who are likely to be sticklers for upholding party rules.

Take South Carolina, where an Insider Advantage poll last month found Romney to be second with 16 percent. Among voters under 45, Romney earned only 7 percent, and he trailed Herman Cain by a landslide of 39 percent to 19 percent among voters in the tea party sweet spot age of 45 to 64. A CBS poll found that only 18 percent of Republicans would support Romney enthusiastically. More than 40 percent had reservations.

While Romney is far ahead in New Hampshire, many Republicans will see that contest as tainted. New England Republicanism represents a declining stock in the national party, and non-Republican voters can swing the vote. Gaining the nomination based on a low-plurality win in Florida and narrow victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina grounded in votes from non-Republicans may not be enough to persuade delegates to ignore party rules.

Looking toward Tampa

To be clear, we believe as many voters as possible should be involved in choosing our elected representatives. For that reason, we support expanded voter choice in general elections, accompanied by fair voting rules like instant runoff voting and proportional voting. But we also believe that rules should matter. If party leaders don’t like their rules, they should change them — not ignore them.

More broadly, we also see value in more people getting active in parties and other political associations and are intrigued by new forms of associations allowed by the Internet and social media. Coming together to define common interests and communicate those to other Americans is the very definition of the political process. Having more meaningful party conventions could promote the value of such involvement.

As one step the parties could take regardless of how Republicans pick a nominee next year, we like Washington Post reporter Michael Leahy’s suggestion that the major parties change their recent practice of giving nominees unchecked power in selecting a vice president. The major parties have had a series of controversial vice-presidential nominees – think of Sarah Palin in 2008, Joe Lieberman in 2000, Dan Quayle in 1988 and Thomas Eagleton in 1972. Given that a vice president may well become both president and a party’s de facto standard-bearer, the electoral calculations of a nominee’s campaign team should not be the only ones that matter.

Furthermore, if parties gave convention delegates more real decision-making authority at least in selecting vice-presidents, states would think twice about breaking rules as to when to hold contests and how to allocate delegates — a state losing half its delegates would always represent a real penalty, not just a theoretical one.

What happens in Tampa might come down to Republican Party leaders because there is no obvious process to appeal decisions by the party’s Standing Committee on Rules. But we anticipate and welcome more attention to party rules and what it means to be active in a political party in the 21st century. And Republicans may not be able to prevent fireworks on the convention floor, where ultimately the delegates are in control.

Stay tuned. What promises to be a momentous 2012 presidential election is just getting started.

Rob Richie is executive director of FairVote — The Center for Voting and Democracy, a nonpartisan organization based in Takoma Park, Md. Elise Helgesen is a Virginia attorney and a democracy fellow at FairVote.

Readers' Comments (37)

So what you're saying is they make stuff up as they go along to suit their personal needs. Well who doesn't know that. They serve in their office the same way. Maybe someone can get them to sign a pledge that they will be honest and forthcoming. Ya right. The republican party convention is an orchestrated event. It is run just like Nazi Germany and if they could project their will on the others the federal government would be run the same way.

Yet in a number of Republican contests — including New Hampshire, which allows undeclared voters, including those registering on Election Day, to participate — candidates who aren’t registered as Republicans can help determine the party’s nominee. Some states even allow registered Democrats to vote in its contest, a real possibility in a year when Democrats apparently won’t have a contested nomination race.

As nominating primaries are not true elections for office, it is entirely reasonable to limit participation in such contests to those who are registered members of the party which is holding the contest. There is no reasonable argument for allowing non-party members a voice in who will be the party's nominee. If Independents want to be true to their independence, they should wait to see which candidates the polical parties put forward, and which, if any independent candidates have placed their name on the ballot. Because they choose to be independent, they have no right to expect a voice in selecting a given party's nominee.

If enough candidates can raise the money, we may have a logjam instead of a clear nominee when we get to Tampa. I can see Paul, Romney and Perry going all the way through the process, maybe more if they can raise the money. Republican delegates may decide to nominate their own candidate in Tampa, one not now in the race. It could be real fireworks and fun in Tampa. Paul may end up being the kingmaker (or the sour-grapes guy who doesn't like the RINO Republicans nominate and decides to run as a third-party candidate). With the RNC making inconsistent decisions, like letting Florida have a rule-violating winner-take-all before April 1st, yet docking Florida half its delegates for moving up in the calendar, look for a major ruckus to erupt concerning the rules and their inconsistent application. It smacks too much of a rigged game. We may not have a Republican nominee until the second or third or thirty-third ballot, making for nail-biting TV. On the down side, the last two conventions -- one Democratic, one Republican -- that failed to vote in its nominee on the first ballot produced a loser in the general election. In any case, Tampa should be exciting and unusually interesting; unless it's not and it turns out to be another boring party-rigged show.

The nominating rules of the Republican Party are their own rules. If they decide to change them, that's their business, not yours. Why do care about internal Republican Party political procedures, anyway?

Attempting a Gumby-stretch like that first thing in the morning could be detrimental to your health.

I suppose that is no problem, with your taxpayer funded healthcare and your government job, eh davey?

No stretch at all, loretta. Merely stating documentable historic fact. Something you have such a difficult time grasping.

As to my healthcare, I pay a hefty price for my quality healthcare coverage through a private sector insurance provider. Can you make the same claim? Doubtful. Your penchant for bringing extraneous personal attacks merely indicates your completely bankrupt of any substantive arguments regarding a political party's right to establish, and amend as necessary, their own rules.

If you can't debate with substance, sweetie, perhaps it's best you stick to something you are capable of -- like laundry or toilet cleaning,

I wouldn't worry too much about delegates going rogue. Better to focus on those outside the convention than those on the inside. Particularly certain members of the media who have dusted off their Palin playbooks to go rogue on a certain prominent athlete ...http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

Merely stating documentable historic fact. Something you have such a difficult time grasping.

Lies, lies, vicious lies, various assortment of vicious lies . . . You may try reading some History = 1954-1974

1) All "Dixie-crats" Left the Democratic Party( over Integration & State's Rights) = Facists, Neo-Nazi-folks are all now inside The Republican-Tea-Party- and fast becomming a real Threat to a "Balanced Jeffersonian Democracy"

2) Independents who left Progressive Causes did not turn to GOP until Reagan's "Starve-the-Beast" speech

3) GOP's Sexual Prefference Policy (Sharia Law) may be clearly examined to acertain a key difference in a "Dictator's Mindset and Democrats, who want Government Out Of Bedrooms"

4) Immigration Policy (Hitler's Nazi Ideas) shows another key difference (As was Hitler never wanting anyone but Blue-eyed, Blond Haired Germans, so it is with Republicans = so, who acts like a duck, walks like a duck?)

5) The Hamilton/James Madison connection w/ Republican Insistence on "Money in Elections" "Corporations = People" clearly defines The Republican Party as inside the Master-Slave compact as holding disdain for workers.

Well David, Chew on a smidgen then explain how & why you even fathom The Democratic Party as Non-Inclusive (Nazi) or wanting to take choice from women (Facist) or Lies for War in Iraq (a dictator, Saddam Husein, Placed There By Dick Cheney, Bush Senior et al while they were at DOD & CIA) =

I wanted us to place an "Eisenhower-Republican" on the ballot .... a man w/balls enough to Act with balance, one who would never sign then Honor a "To-a-man Pledge" Over "Oath of Office"

But the government pays the larger share of your health insurance premiums

No, the business I run funds the employer share of the premiums. No taxpayer dollars (proptery, sales, income, etc) goes to pay for that portion of the employee benefits I receive just like any other employee in the private sector.

My God, look how many people are there. They fell for the GOP's BS again. I really do hope the GOP take over in 2012, Conservatives are going to be kicking themselves in the teeth after the GOP send this country into a 4 year depression. And since Paul Ryan's country gutting budget leaves us with debt of 23+ trillion in 10 years, I'm gonna love the look on all the little Conservative faces when the GOP keep running trillion a year deficits and have to keep raising the debt ceiling. Yes indeed, Conservatives are in for a treat. Especially when the older people see their SS & Medicare whacked.

My God, look how many people are there. They fell for the GOP's BS again. I really do hope the GOP take over in 2012, Conservatives are going to be kicking themselves in the teeth after the GOP send this country into a 4 year depression. And since Paul Ryan's country gutting budget leaves us with debt of 23+ trillion in 10 years, I'm gonna love the look on all the little Conservative faces when the GOP keep running trillion a year deficits and have to keep raising the debt ceiling. Yes indeed, Conservatives are in for a treat. Especially when the older people see their SS & Medicare whacked.

It seems you are happy with Obama's average of 33,000 job creation per month since August when his failed policies created 0 jobs.

Why do you think the Obama stimulus is a success when it created 0 jobs in August?